Courting Fate? What is more tempting?

[NAF]

"Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again"--Robert Heinlein
"There are several good protections against temptation, but the surest is cowardice"--Mark Twain
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick
with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself." Oscar Wilde

I have been thinking about temptation after reading about it in Geoff Shackelford's The Art of Golf Design ...I think it is temptation that has made me love architecture so much..The thrill of being tempted and succeeding is one of the greatest things you can feel on a golf course..My question is what others here view as more tempting..The chance for an eagle in driving a short par 4 or reaching in 2 a par 5...or maybe a par 3 like Cypress Point's 17th..

I would argue a short par 4 like the 13th at Lahinch or #2 at National or perhaps #10 at Royal Melbourne West is more exciting because if you miss going for the green the trouble you face may bring you to a 5 or 6 quicker than missing a par 5 in 2..I would think reaching a short par 5 like #13 at ANGC or lets say #4 at Bethpage or #16 at Shinnecock would not be as tempting or thrilling because if you miss you still feel like you have an extra shot to play with even if you are in trouble..

So what is the most thrilling hole, the short par 4 that is reachable or the tempting par 5??  

[APBernstein]

I think it ulitmately depends on the hole in question.

The 16th at Cypress Point does tempt one to hit the strong shot across the ocean to the green and is considered one of the best in the world.  The same can be said about Augusta's 13th.

However, I would not say that one does not need to be precise with the shot at Augusta.  Rae's Creek lurks precariously in front of the green.  The hanging lie in the fairway complicates things even more.

I was watching The Golf Channel's recap of the 1997 Masters and in an interview with Tiger Woods, he spoke of the difficulty in pulling off a small pitch from behind the 13th green.  As he described it, he had a little over a square foot to land the ball and have the shot called a success.  He hit that spot exactly and was still left with a 10 footer for 4.

Even if the approach to the green in two is pushed well to the right, that dicey pitch over Rae's Creek is no pushover.  Paul Stankowski can attest to that.

While a par 5 may allow an extra shot for recovery, the 13th often dictates that only the best 3rd shot may yield such a recovery.

[THuckaby2]

Well said, Andrew.

In addition to this, I'd say that the driveable par 4 might be less tempting in general just because it is more unique... with the way equipment is today, nearly every par 5 is reachable in 2, whereas par 4's thankfully are still long enough to be 2-shotters in the vast majority of instances.

Thus at a driveable par 4, given it's uniqueness, it might not be a temptation but rather a requirement - you only get so few cracks at it, why NOT try it?  As opposed to the par 5, where reaching in 2 has become so commonplace, the decision becomes more evenly weighed....

Perhaps my logic and/or writing is skewed here but my point is 13 Lahinch is a no brainer (GO FOR IT!) whereas my brain seems to be in gear no matter what par 5 I am playing...

As for 16 Cypress, unless you're a member and/or play it in competition and/or play it frequently, there is no greater NO BRAINER on this earth.  What are you gonna tell your friends, what a great pitch and putt you made?

David Feherty wrote a great piece on exactly this in this month's Golf Mag.  My feelings playing Cypress were EXACTLY like his.

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

NAF,
I am a most weak person. How many times, when playing socially, have I heard me tell myself "you didn't come here to lay up, chickens**t". A definite flaw in character, for sure.
I think short par 5's lure more than do short 4's. Your points are well taken but how many mortals really can be led to believe they can reach a 300 yd. hole in one swing of the bat? More will bite at a 230 yd. second shot, after their stellar 250 yd. drive, because they remember the 1 or 2 times out of 10 that they hit such a shot.
Which is the most thrilling depends on the outcome.
    

[THuckaby2]

Jim, that's basically what I was getting at in my odd roundabout way - thanks!  There are just so few par 4s that really are reachable that when you find one, it's a no-brainer, so it's not like there's temptation, it's a MUST-DO!  But this must-do for most people is 250 yards or less, and how many par4's are that short?

Par 5's with 230 yard 2nd shots seem far more commonplace...

TH

[APBernstein]

Obviously, I do not hit the ball as far as some who play the tees that I do (usually the "blue" tees, not quite all the way back, but close).  However, I don't believe I have played a driveable par 4 that I truely felt was driveable.  The only exception would be the 5th at Tobacco Road, in which I carried the sandy brush and ran the ball up the slope only to watch it roll 30 yards back in the opposite direction.

I think a hole that measures 260 yards (again, from the member or "blue" tees) is far more interesting.  The 10th at Royal Melbourne looks special because of the downhill slope in front of the green that tempts players even more and the terror that awaits on the second shot if your first is not wholly successful.

[THuckaby2]

Andrew - did you play NGLA? I thought you had...  #2 would be driveable for you, I think... it doesn't become apparent until after you've played it once, but I'd have to say even short-knocker me could drive that if I go far enough left and have the huevos to try it.  In my one time there, I didn't know the hole and the visual says NO NO NO from the tee....

But you're right, REALLY driveable par 4's are indeed rare for us non-Matt Wards.  I've played very few myself and the ones that are really could be called long par 3's; that is they're par4 in card listing only.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

Temptation was, at one time, trying to drive the green at Riviera's tenth hole. Never in competition and only when I was ahead on the front nine. Certainly one of the great short par fours in golf.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Noel,
I'm glad you enjoyed the essay, I really do believe the tempting holes are the best, and when you think about it, there are so, so few. The short 4's get my vote as the most satisfying, memorable and interesting because intriguing options tend to come into play for more players.

I mentioned it on another post a ways back, but some of the best potential holes that could tempt all players would be the great long par-3's with a new tee just a few yards back,turning them into just under-300 yard short 4's. Basically, this would include holes like Dr. MacKenzie's original plan for #16 at Cypress, #5 at Pine Valley (assuming the ground over the lake was fairway!!), #4 at Riviera, #11 at LACC, #13 at Bel-Air, #10 Winged Foot (wait, that was done at Fenway!), etc...

Of course, such holes just don't fit the balance sheet in today's Digestian Resistance to Scoring, 7,000 yard mindset. Temptation is out, a great "test" is in. Such boring golf!

Bob,
You could drive 10 at Riviera??? Impressive! The only time I could try was from the forward tee. What a fun shot that is, the options are so interesting. In fact, under the current uh, restoration plan for Riviera crafted by the genius's from Far Hills, Hendersonville and Lord knows how many superintendents who have never played Riviera, they want to shorten #10 by 13 yards and move the tee to the right for better gallery and player access to the range! What vision!! That'll certainly restore temptation to #10 for most golfers, though somehow, I don't think the genius's were thinking of temptation when they came up with that brilliant idea. And that's one of the less mindless things they want to do to the place.
Geoff

[Chris Kane]

I can think of nothing in golf that is more fun to play than a brilliant little par 4, such as #10 at RM West.  When I play it, I feel as though I have a 'free' shot to play with, becuase if I don't hit the green (and don't get stuck in that carnivorous bunker) I still have the opportunity to lob the ball to the green and putt for the birdie.  But if I can't play a two decent shots to the green, I'm stuffed.  Thats the sign of a great hole.  The chance to go for it, but there is still an element of danger for the player who takes the conservative option.

Par 5's don't do it for me in the same way.  Perhaps becuase it's so commonplace to hit them in two, and putting for three isn't as exciting as putting for a two!

[APBernstein]

Tom:

No, I haven't played NGLA.  However, if I were to put my finger on one thing that would heighten my enjoyment of this site, it would be to play that course, preferably a thousand times.  I'm not commenting on it's quality, just the fact that if I had played it, I would be able to understand about 50% more the posts.

Geoff:

Obviously, other than the 16th at Cypress Point, it is unlikely that any of those holes were ever planned or will ever become the short par 4 that you describe.  To be honest with you, I prefer the 5th at Pine Valley as a par 3.  It's length and difficulty make it a perfect fit for the long par 3 that many on this site covet (as well as the short par 3, which is taken care of at #10).

[Justin_Ryan]

I agree with you Chris, there is nothing that is more fun than a challenging short par four.  I remember 10 at RMW slightly differently to you though, because in addition to that cavernous bunker you mention, there is also a large amount of scrub waiting to swallow an errant drive.  I doubt that many who take on this green hit it.  Playing conservatively would generally yield a lower score, I would imagine.  You can have a look at it at  http://www.rmgc.com.au/courses/index.php .  An even shorter hole, but in my memory possibly even more challenging is 13 at Portsea.  Sitting on a very exposed higher part of the course, it is only 244 metres, but there is a mass of bunkers down the left and plenty of trouble right.  Again, here is a link, http://www.portseagolf.com.au/hole.asp?h=13 .  I believe that Mike Clayton was responsible for the bunkers down the left and the clearance of ti-tree, and it is now a great looking and potentially score wrecking little hole.  And Mike, please feel free to elaborate and claim some credit if it is your work.

[Chris Kane]

Yes Justin, I agree with you about 13 at Portsea.  Adding to the mix is that down the left side is significantly lower than the right side of the fairway.  If you play into the traps, you not only have a long bunker shot to the devilish green, you have a significant height issue.  Not unlike the bunker we talked about at RM.

Mike Clayton, I remember following you round at the Portsea Pro-Am three years ago.  You hit your drive to within 10m of the green, and had a bump-and-run second shot to the pin.  It took you four shots to get down.  This is not intended to demean your play, but to demonstate what a brilliant hole you have uncovered.  On many a hole you'd have been almost guaranteed birdie, but the undulations and speed of the green kept the interest level up.

But it still a hole that can be conquered by the high marker.  One of the best short par 4's in this part of the world, IMHO  

[Mike Clayton]

Justin -Chris

We did 13 at Portsea -trees out left,right and over - recontoured the fairway to stop all the short hitters shots running into the trees and built all the bunkers .Previously the hole had no bunkers and there was no decision to make and its the decision that makes 10 at RMW and now hopefully at Portsea.

I like the hole but some dont -nothing unusual in that.

[TEPaul]

I like very much Geoff Sackleford's feelings about the roll(s) of temptation in golf architecture. There are a number of ways to look at it like this topic of how clear is its existence (on a particular hole) and how it may effect a golfer differently on a par 3, par 4 or 5. Or the many ways it may effect a spectrum of golfers differently.

I like his ideas of the roll temptation plays in a basic test of the interest and therefore probably the quality of a various hole and certainly in the exact context of its architecture.

It goes sort of like this: The options or demand(s) of a hole are analyzed along with the degrees of risk/reward of the particular options. Are the options really functional, ie, how much are they used and what all can they ultimately produce? And lastly, any option can be looked at through the perspective of temptation. This is how he seems to boil it down. So in this test of a hole, "temptation" can come out as the basic undercurrent of the entire test. Or, ultimately temptation is the most important element of all--the most fundamental in golf's strategies!

And I also like that this is not purely speculative on his part but he has written a number or articles about the real world decision-making ramifications of temptation and mostly in the heightened Sunday drama of the contender in something like the Masters on hole #13!

But what some of these articles have shown very clearly is how fine a line it can be to tamper with a hole's architecture and what it can mean in the context of the complex temptations of a particular hole.

In the case of his article on ANGC's #13 how the club had practically upset the entire equation of temptation on #13 by doing something seemingly as minor as "prettying up" or "slicking up" the banks of Rae's Creek and raising its water level.

Certainly they intended this only as a very minor maintenance measure with zero thought to if or how it might effect the thinking of the competitors in the Masters. Man, were they surprised! So much so, in fact, that the following year they put it back to the way it had been!

But then you could look again at the entire spectrum of the degrees of temptation. Some on here have mentioned when it becomes a "no brainer". I go the other way. I think temptation is best when it becomes almost a head ache producing brain test! Maybe almost a soul search into the balance of how smart you are compared to how brave you are and what that all can mean in a numbers sense.

Certainly this shows, though, the vast differences of somebody playing a Cypress #16 one time in their life for just fun or playing for something really meaningful in the even broader contexts of match or stroke tournaments!

In this way a hole like #16 Cypress or Riviera's #10 shows not just how good and effective their temptation is but how varied it can be. Obviously why they are considered some of the best holes in the world!

[THuckaby2]

Certainly this shows, though, the vast differences of somebody playing a Cypress #16 one time in their life for just fun or playing for something really meaningful in the even broader contexts of match or stroke tournaments!

In this way a hole like #16 Cypress or Riviera's #10 shows not just how good and effective their temptation is but how varied it can be. Obviously why they are considered some of the best holes in the world!

Well said, TEP.  That's another thing I was getting at in my odd rambling illogical way.  If I'm playing Cypress in a competition, it's an entirely different thing from my one round there with GCA blokes!

And Andrew, my apologies, I absolutely know how you feel re NGLA and somehow I thought you had gotten there - you went to nearly every other GCA shrine!  But most definitely a large part of my joy playing there came from the knowledge I would understand so many more posts here... right on, my friend.

Your feelings re NGLA echo mine re Pine Valley.  No matter how much one reads about it, no matter now many pictures one sees... I'm never gonna get the "discussions" here re that.  I haven't seen the inside of those gates...

TH

[Geoff_Shackelford]

APBernstein,
You misunderstood my point, I was referring to those par-3's being converted as a potential conceptual possibility for architects to think about, not as a commentary on them as long 3's or how they fit into their design. Try to envision the same terrain as #5 at PVGC, the same placement of hazards, but the tee 20 or so yards back, and consider the options that this would create. The lay-up just over the lake (again, assuming it became fairway) is the shot most would play. This would leave an awkward uphill pitch, while the drive over the sand and near the green, would obviously be at a far greater advantage. So the temptation would be there to go for the green.

As for it being as you said, "unlikely" that the architects thought this way, I have pointed out in a few of my books that George Thomas did design the 11th at LACC as both a long par-3 and a short par-4 and wrote about his excitement for this possibility of multiple courses within the course. I love the long 3 at LACC, but the short 4 options would be more interesting for players of all levels. Thomas also proposed the same alternate situation for the old par-3 3rd at La Cumbre, so at least in his case, I think it was quite likely he planned these ideas out since he wrote about them with such enthusiasm.

Tom Paul,
Yes, it is a very fine line and that is why sudden, dramatic changes in technology have always been such an annoyance to architects from each generation. This is where the Fazio group proves how deep they are in over their head when they start trying to tinker with the strategy of an Augusta or a Riviera. They haven't a clue what the ramifications are of changes, and if you read their rationale for changes as I have, it's clear that if they do have a clue, then they simply don't care about creating interesting situations for golf, but instead, leaving a big gash on the landscape and getting their name in lights.
Geoff

[Bob_Huntley]

Geoff:

I didn't say I succeeded. Having lived on the course, the back tee of the 12th hole, and played it forward and backward, I cannot see any change that would improve, what to me, was the perfect course. The tenth is a gem that no lapidiary could polish brighter.

[APBernstein]

Geoff:

I knew I was stepping on thing ice with that blanket comment about it being unlikely that those holes were ever planned differently/alternately, but still decided to say because, frankly, there was a lack of anything more fitting in my head.

I see the level of hypotheticals that we are taking into account on the 5th at Pine Valley.  I will grant you this: without having seen or heard about the 5th at Pine Valley, your idea seems like a fitting alternative.  And in your case, if the architects had taken this idea in the original stages, I would know only your version.  But if I had to place the two side-by-side, I would still prefer the current 5th.


All the best,

[THuckaby2]

Andrew:

Given Geoff and I seem to be the only ones who directed posts to you on this thread, I can only assume your "my name is still Andrew" comment is directed at one of us.  Given I called you nothing but "Andrew", it must be Geoff you direct this to.

And want some friendly advice from an old-timer? Well I'm gonna give it, though I'm sure you could care less.

Correcting how people address you and assuming familiarity rarely wins any friends.  I ought not to speak for Geoff, but as a relatively infrequent participant in these sites and very busy guy, I'd have to guess he may not remember you and just addressed you by what you yourself put down, ie "APBernstein."

Ever seen the movie "Stripes"?

Lighten up, Francis.

And I mean this in a positive, constructive way, honestly.  Your posts always belie your youth in terms of knowledge, and I look forward to them!

TH

[APBernstein]

Tom:

It really wasn't directed at either of you, really.  I was just about to remove that line of text since I figured out how to change it in my profile to actually reflect my full name.

It was simply meant to clarify that I was indeed the one posting under APBernstein.  That's all, nothing more.

All the best,

[THuckaby2]

Andrew: ok, got it, my mistake and my apologies.  The written word is quite easy to misconstrue, isn't it?

Cheers!

TH

[Rich_Goodale]

Bob

Re the 10th at Riveria:

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

[Bob_Huntley]

Rich:

Was that from Burns?

Bob

[Rich_Goodale]

Bob

Browning.  "Andrea del Sarto: the Faultless Painter."

Cheers

Rich